Appeal No. 96-2653
Application No. 08/395,681
inner diameter of hole 3 at least when the cylindrical
portion 10 is inserted into hole 3. Schmitt states, in
column 1 lines 34-35, that cylindrical portion 10 fits
easily in hole 3.
The examiner then determined that "Schmitt fails to teach a
flange on the sleeve." The examiner then found that Stewart
teaches "a grommet having a sleeve with and without a flange
(generally at 36)." The examiner concluded that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to have provided the
grommet of Schmitt with a flange on the sleeve, as taught by
Stewart et al, as to distribute the compressive load more
evenly over the flange portion of the elastomeric body and
achieve the desired compression limits of the elastomeric
body.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to have provided the grommet of Schmitt with a flange on the
sleeve, as taught by Stewart. However, we agree with the
appellant's argument (brief, p. 4) that the modified grommet
(resulting from the combination of Schmitt and Stewart) would not
teach all the limitations of independent claim 1. Specifically,
the recitation in claim 1 that the elastomeric element has a
radially inwardly extending portion at the opposite end of the
cylindrical portion thereof from the flange portion thereon
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007